Nicholas Reekie v Attorney-General

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 47/2013
[2014] NZSC 98

BETWEEN

NICHOLAS PAUL ALFRED REEKIE
Applicant

AND

ATTORNEY-GENERAL
First Respondent

DISTRICT COURT AT WAITAKERE
Second Respondent

SC 102/2013
BETWEEN	NICHOLAS PAUL ALFRED REEKIE Applicant
AND	DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND VISITING JUSTICE TO SPRING HILL CORRECTIONAL FACILITY Respondents

Court:	Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook and Arnold JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person C R Gwyn and J Foster for Respondents on 27 November 2013 C R Gwyn and R D Garden for Respondents on 5 December 2013 A S Butler and O C Gascoigne as Amicus Curiae
Judgment:	30 July 2014

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for recall is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Mr Reekie seeks a recall of the judgment delivered on 29 May 2014 dismissing an appeal and an application for leave to appeal in respect of decisions made by single judges of the Court of Appeal as to security for costs.[1] The application is based on a mix of particular and general challenges to the judgment.
[1]Reekie v Attorney-General [2014] NZSC 63.
We see none of the arguments advanced as warranting recall of the judgment.
The allegations of torture were not ignored as the conduct said to amount to torture was referred to, as were the associated findings of fact made in the High Court. The Court noted the apparent inconsistency between the practice which obtained before the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005 and the approach taken in Siemer v Heron.[2] There was no inconsistency between the conclusion that the wrongful detention claim was arguable and the conclusion that Mr Reekie had suffered no detriment because if all issues had been appropriately addressed, he would have remained in custody for the relevant period.
[2]Siemer v Heron [2012] NZSC 91.
The more general challenges (to the difficulties identified by the Court as to the role of the Registrar, the general principles set out in the judgment and the engagement by the Court with the merits of the appeals to the Court of Appeal) raise nothing new.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondents

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New Zealand considered an application by Nicholas Paul Alfred Reekie for a recall of the judgment delivered on 29 May 2014, which dismissed an appeal and an application for leave to appeal against decisions made by single judges of the Court of Appeal regarding security for costs. The application was based on specific and general challenges to the judgment, including claims that the allegations of torture were ignored, that there was an inconsistency between the practices before the Court of Appeal and the approach in Siemer v Heron, and that the Court did not adequately address the role of the Registrar, the general principles, or the merits of the appeals. The Court, comprising Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, and Arnold JJ, dismissed the application for recall.

The legal issues the Court had to decide included whether the specific allegations of torture were properly considered in the judgment, whether there was an inconsistency in the approach to security for costs between the Court of Appeal and Siemer v Heron, and whether the judgment sufficiently addressed the role of the Registrar, the general principles, and the merits of the appeals. The Court found that none of the arguments presented warranted a recall of the judgment. The allegations of torture were indeed referred to, and the findings of fact from the High Court were mentioned. The Court also noted the apparent inconsistency but found no inconsistency between the conclusions regarding the wrongful detention claim and the conclusion that Mr Reekie had suffered no detriment.

The Court’s reasoning centred on the absence of any new or compelling arguments warranting a recall. The specific challenges, such as the alleged ignoring of torture allegations and the inconsistency between practices, did not hold water upon closer examination. Furthermore, the general challenges to the role of the Registrar, the principles set out in the judgment, and the engagement with the merits of the appeals were found to be without merit as they did not introduce new insights. Consequently, the application for recall was dismissed. The Court concluded that the judgment stood as it was, and no recall was warranted.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established